DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objection to the specification
The remarks have been found unpersuasive. The instant specification does not use term decrease, monotonically. MPEP 608.01 (o) recites:
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
While paragraphs [0041]-[0042], do describe:
a relation between the different caps where g1>g2>g3>g4 or “These four regions may have shapes in which the second region 21B protrudes more toward the planar electrode 22 with respect to the first region 21A, the third region 21C with respect to the second region 21B, and the fourth region 21D with respect to the third region 21C, such that the distances of separation as to the planar electrode 22 become smaller in this order.”
The word monotonically decreasing is defined in the claim with respect to an intersecting direction of a flow of ions. The term decrease, monotonically is not used and the term is misleading with respect to gas flow. Specifically, figure 1 shows the DMS along the z-x plane, where the flow of ions is in the x direction and the filter electrodes 21/22 neither increase nor decrease in this perspective. Figure 2 turns the perspective to the zy plane. That is, the sample gas flow is into the page. From the perspective of gas flow the (fig. 1), the distances are neither increasing nor decreasing and the filters are claimed with respect to the gas. Therefore, the term decreasing monotonically is not readily apparent from the specification
The remarks are unpersuasive and the objection stands as reiterated herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b):
The claims have been amended to overcome the indefiniteness issues. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 103: Miller in view of Melhirst
The remarks have been found persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration, the claims have been obvious in view of Wang as discussed herein below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The instant specification lacks antecedent basis for “distances of separation between each of the plurality of regions and the second filter electrode decrease monotonically in the intersecting direction” as now required by claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected over Wang(CN108091548) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith) in view of Miller (US pgPub 2005/0139762) or Miller (US pgPub 2006/0255255).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a field asymmetric ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) device (figure 1), comprising:
an ionization source ([0014]);
a detection cell (figure); and
wherein the detection cell includes:
the pair of filter electrodes(2/3, see paragraph [0042]) including
a first filter electrode and a second filter electrode (2/3 see paragraph [0042] and figure),
a first downstream-side electrode, a second downstream-side electrode, a first opposing electrode, and a second opposing electrode ([0014] teaches detection zone downstream separation and [0037] teaches upper and lower parallel detection electrodes having “N independent detection electrode pairs”),
wherein the first filter electrode and the second filter electrode are disposed such that to be separated from each other and to be opposite each other (2/3 separated and opposite as seen in figure),
the first filter electrode includes a plurality of regions including at least four regions including a first region and a second region (2, regions 6-6’’’’), the plurality of regions is arrayed sequentially along an intersecting direction intersecting a flow direction of ions of measurement introduced between the pair of filter electrodes ([0042]), the flow direction of ions being a direction from the ionization source toward the detection cell ([0042]), distances of separation between each of the plurality of regions and the second filter electrode decrease, monotonically along the intersecting direction, from a third region, of the plurality of regions, at one end of the plurality of regions to a fourth region, of the plurality of regions, at an opposite end of the plurality of regions (see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
1150
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first downstream-side electrode and the second downstream-side electrode are, respectively, disposed on a downstream side of the first region and the second region, in the flow direction, and are separated from each other with respect to the intersecting direction ([0037] and [0042] and figure), and the first opposing electrode and the second opposing electrode are disposed on the downstream side from the second filter electrode, and are disposed, respectively, opposite the first downstream-side electrode and the second downstream-side electrode ([0037], [0042]).
While paragraph [0023] teaches upper and lower separating electrode is connected to RF and DC power supplies and paragraph [0030] teaches applying different high field asymmetric wave radio frequency high voltages to different electrodes, Wang fails to disclose a first microcomputer that controls at least a distributed voltage applied across a pair of filter electrodes.
However, Miller et al. teach a first microcomputer that controls at least a distributed voltage applied across a pair of filter electrodes ([0093]).
Miller modifies Wang by suggesting a processor to apply voltages to the filter electrodes.
Since both inventions are directed towards applying voltages to the filter electrodes, it would have been obvious to apply the voltages via processor control as suggested in Miller in the device of Wang so as to automate the voltage application to simplify the voltage application of Wang.
Alternatively, Miller teaches a first microcomputer that controls at least a distributed voltage applied across a pair of filter electrodes ([0174], wherein paragraph [0040] teaches the control part is under direction of a microcomputer)
Miller modifies Wang by suggesting a processor to apply voltages to the filter electrodes.
Since both inventions are directed towards applying voltages to the filter electrodes, it would have been obvious to apply the voltages via processor control as suggested in Miller in the device of Wang so as to automate the voltage application to simplify the voltage application of Wang.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US pgPub 2006/0255255) (first interpretation or second interpretation) in view of Wang et al. (CN108091548) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith)
Regarding claim 1, Miller et al. teach a FAIMS device (fig. 4) comprising
an ionization source (best seen in figure 1, 18 or paragraph [0164 with respect to ionization region 18a])
detection cell (fig. 4); and
a first microcomputer that controls at least a distributed voltage applied across a pair of filter electrodes ([0174], wherein paragraph [0040] teaches the control part is under direction of a microcomputer), wherein
the detection cell includes:
the pair of filter electrodes (upper filter electrodes 20 and lower electrodes 22 see paragraph [0161]) including a first filter electrode (20a-20e or sub-groups thereof together are interpreted as the first filter electrode) and a second filter electrode (22a-22e or subgroups thereof are interpreted as the second filter electrode);
a first downstream-side electrode (detector electrode 33a ([0164]) and figure 5);
a second downstream-side electrode (detector electrode 33b [0164] note for each flow path, thus 33b corresponds to 20b/22b);
a first opposing electrode (35a); and
a second opposing electrode (35b),
wherein the first filter electrode and the second filter electrode are disposed such that to be separated from each other and to be opposite each other (20a-e opposite 22a-e see figure 4 or figure 3b for more clarity),
the first filter electrode (20a-20e, figure 4) includes a plurality of regions (each individual electrode 20a-20e) including at least four regions (20a-20e) includes including a first region (20a) and a second region (20b),
the plurality of regions is arrayed sequentially along an intersecting direction intersecting a flow direction of ions of measurement introduced between the pair of filter electrodes (between 20 and 22, see annotated figure below), the flow direction of ions being a direction from the ionization source towards the detection cell (from 18 to DMS as seen in figure 4 and better seen in figure 2a, flow path discussed in paragraph [0164]);
PNG
media_image2.png
566
1127
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the first downstream-side electrode and the second downstream-side electrode are respectively disposed on a downstream side of the first region and the second region, in the flow direction (33a and 33b are downstream the first region between 20a and 22a and the second region between 20b and 22b (figures 4-5) in the flow direction indicated in figure 2b),, and are separated from each other with respect to the intersecting direction (33a and 33b are adjacent to each other thus in the intersecting direction), and
the first opposing electrode and the second opposing electrode are disposed on the downstream side from the second filter electrode (35a and 35b are downstream 22a and 22b), and are disposed, respectively, opposite the first downstream-side electrode and the second downstream-side electrode (35aa and 35b are opposite 33a and 33b as seen in figure 5 and 1).
Miller differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing teach distances of separation between each of the plurality of regions and the second filter electrode decrease, monotonically along the intersecting direction, from a third region, of the plurality of regions, at one end of the plurality of regions to a fourth region, of the plurality of regions, at an opposite end of the plurality of regions
However, Wang et al. teach distances (distances between 2 and 3 wherein 2 is stepped as indicated by 6,6’,6’’,6’’’ and 6’’’’) of separation between each of the plurality of regions (regions 6-6’’’) and the second filter electrode (3) decrease, monotonically along the intersecting direction (as seen in the figure the steps decrease from 6’’’’ to 6 with respect to mesh filter electrode 3, see paragraph [0042] for sample gas introduced from one end of upper separation electrode and lower suppuration electrodes and flows through the separation region 1 between 2/3 to ion detection pair as provided at the other end of the separation electrodes 2/3, thus intersecting with the ion flow direction), from a third region, of the plurality of regions, at one end of the plurality of regions to a fourth region, of the plurality of regions, at an opposite end of the plurality of regions,
PNG
media_image1.png
1150
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang modifies Miller by suggesting different gap distances between adjacent filter electrode pairs.
Since both inventions are directed towards detection devices with filter electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the filter array of Miller as suggested by Wang because like Miller, Wang enables both positive and negative polarities which not only expands the detection range but improves the detection efficiency ([0028]), however the separation device of Wang only uses a single RF voltage and DC compensation power supply which is simple in structure, easy to process and easy to mass produce, therefore simplifying filter device ([0029]). Moreover, the stepped high field asymmetric waveform ion migration tub3e achieves simultaneous determination of multiple compounds, reducing analysis time and achieving high-throughput analysis ([0010])
Alternatively, in a second interpretation of Miller, Miller teaches all the limitations as discussed above, however teaches a plurality of first filter electrodes instead of the claimed “first filter electrode”.
However, Wang et al. teach monolithic electrode structure regions of (electrode 2 are stepped) and distances of separation between each of the plurality of regions and the second filter electrode decrease, monotonically along the intersecting direction, from a third region, of the plurality of regions, at one end of the plurality of regions to a fourth region, of the plurality of regions, at an opposite end of the plurality of regions (see discussion above).
Wang modifies Miller by suggesting a monolithic filter electrode pair having different gap distances between adjacent filter electrode pairs.
Since both inventions are directed towards detection devices with filter electrodes, it would have been obvious to substitute the plurality of first filter electrodes of Miller for the monolithic structure of Wang because it would simplify the manufacture of the product by reducing the number of components and power supplies ([0029])
Regarding claim 2, Miller further teaches a first base member (52, figs. 5 and 3b) and a second base member (54, figs., 5 and 3b) that are disposed such that to be separated from each other and to be opposite each other (best seen in figure 3b), the first base member includes:
a first portion that is provided to be following the flow direction(portion of 52 following along the direction of sample inlet 16 as seen in figure 3a), and that supports the first region and the first downstream-side electrode (52 supports 33a and 20a as seen in figure 5), and
a second portion that supports the second region of the one of the pair of filter electrodes and the second downstream-side electrode (52 supports 20b and 33b), and
the second base member includes the first opposing electrode, the second opposing electrode, and the second filter electrode (54 supports 35a, 35b and 22a).
Miller fails to disclose the second portion that is adjacent to the first portion in the intersecting direction that protrudes to a position at which a distance of separation as to the second base member is smaller than that of the first portion.
Wang et al. teach the second portion that is adjacent to the first portion in the intersecting direction that protrudes to a position at which a distance of separation as to the second base member is smaller than that of the first portion (see annotated figure above).
Wang modifies Miller by suggesting different gap distances between adjacent filter electrode pairs.
Since both inventions are directed towards detection devices with filter electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the filter array of Miller as suggested by Wang because like Miller, Wang enables both positive and negative polarities which not only expands the detection range but improves the detection efficiency ([0028]), however the separation device of Wang only uses a single RF voltage and DC compensation power supply which is simple in structure, easy to process and easy to mass produce, therefore simplifying filter device ([0029]). Moreover, the stepped high field asymmetric waveform ion migration tub3e achieves simultaneous determination of multiple compounds, reducing analysis time and achieving high-throughput analysis ([0010])
Regarding claim 5, Miller teaches a pair of major wiring lines for supplying, respectively, electric power to each of the pair of filter electrodes ([0174] teaches signals from the controller are applied to the filter electrodes via electrical leads, thus major wiring lines are leads for supplying power to each of the pair of filter electrodes), wherein the pair of major wiring lines is, respectively, connected to the pair of filter electrodes at end portions of the pair of filter electrodes in the intersecting direction (fig. 4b shows leads connecting to the end of each filter electrodes 22a-22d in the intersecting direction (i.e. direction of adjacent filter electrodes 22a-22d). Since the field is generated by signals sent to 22a-22b electrical power is provided to each pair 20a/22a, 20b/22b, etc..).
Regarding claim 7, Miller teaches wherein the first filter electrode further includes a third region (between 20c and 22c) that is disposed such that to be arrayed with the first region and the second region (as seen in figure 4), and
the distances of separation are predetermined such that, when the distributed voltage is applied across the pair of filter electrodes, a first difference, defined by magnitudes of electric fields formed in each of the first region and the second region, is equal to a second difference, defined by magnitudes of electric fields formed in each of the second region and the third region (filter electrodes controlled by a controller via separate electrical leads ([0174]), thus capable of having a difference in magnitudes formed in each region to be equal. MPEP 2114 recites “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Here all the structural requirements are taught by the claim, therefore functioning the device to have the claimed magnitudes does not distinguish the claim over that of Miller).
Regarding claim 9, Miller teaches a second microcomputer that controls a compensation voltage applied across the pair of filter electrodes ([0040] note drive circuit is interpreted to be the second microcomputer that controls the bias voltage to provide the compensation of asymmetric field see also paragraph [0152]).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Miller teaches a memory storing one or more computer executable instructions ([0040] teaches microcomputer, inherently requiring storage and programs to direct control part) configured to be executed by the first microcomputer and the second microcomputer ([0040] and [0150] first control unit interpreted to be the portion of microcomputer that applies the asymmetric AC voltage and the second control unit interpreted to be portion of microcomputer that applies DC compensation), the one or more computer executable instructions, when executed by the at least one of the first and second microcomputers causing the FAIMS device to:
apply, by the first microcomputer, an asymmetric alternating current voltage of a first magnitude across the pair of filter electrodes ([0150]); and
applying, by the second microcomputer , a direct current voltage across the pair of filter electrodes ([0150]) while changing a magnitude thereof during the application of the asymmetric alternating current voltage of the first magnitude across the pair of filter electrodes, wherein the magnitude of the direct current voltage applied by the second microcomputer is changed within a range ([0150] teaches application of both asymmetric RF field and compensation field, paragraph [0153] teaches sweeping the compensation signal over a predetermined range) in which a magnitude of an electric field formed in the first region by the asymmetric alternating current voltage of the first magnitude and a magnitude of an electric field formed in the second region are not duplicative (combination of compensation voltage and RF asymmetric voltage different in each electrode pair ([0161]) results in different magnitudes in each region).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Miller teaches a memory storing one or more computer executable instructions ([0040] teaches microcomputer, inherently requiring storage and programs to direct control part) configured to be executed by the first microcomputer and the second microcomputer ([0040] and [0150] first control unit interpreted to be the portion of microcomputer that applies the asymmetric AC voltage and the second control unit interpreted to be portion of microcomputer that applies DC compensation), the one or more computer executable instructions, when executed by the at least one of the first and second microcomputers causing the FAIMS device to:
applying, by the first control unit, an asymmetric alternating current voltage of a first magnitude and a second magnitude across the pair of filter electrodes ([0150] and figure 2b shows asymmetric RF voltage having a low and a high magnitude); and
applying, by the second control unit, a direct current voltage across the pair of filter electrodes ([0150]) while changing a magnitude thereof during the application of the asymmetric alternating current voltage of the first magnitude and the second magnitude across the pair of filter electrodes, and the magnitude of the direct current voltage applied by the second control unit is changed within a range ([0150] teaches application of both asymmetric RF field and compensation field, paragraph [0153] teaches sweeping the compensation signal over a predetermined range. As discussed above the asymmetric waveform is composed of a high and a low magnitude) in which a magnitude of an electric field formed in the first region by the asymmetric alternating current voltage of the first magnitude and the second magnitude and a magnitude of an electric field formed in the second region are not duplicative (combination of compensation voltage and RF asymmetric voltage different in each electrode pair ([0161]) results in different magnitudes in each region).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881